Comments on: Science Debate 2012 Answershttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/science-debate-2012-answers/
Your Daily Fix of Neuroscience, Skepticism, and Critical ThinkingFri, 09 Dec 2016 15:07:46 +0000hourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6.1By: BillyJoe7http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/science-debate-2012-answers/#comment-45610
Wed, 03 Oct 2012 11:23:15 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4836#comment-45610The banks lent money to people who they knew could never afford to pay them back. They even provided low interest rates for five years to suck them in. That happened because of poor regulation.
]]>By: rayliderhttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/science-debate-2012-answers/#comment-45589
Tue, 02 Oct 2012 15:27:14 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4836#comment-45589Regarding your first statement: It was actually big government that gave us the subprime fiasco. The financial industry was/is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the country, to say we had a tiny government is simply not true. You must be referring to deregulation of Glass-Steagall, but really that act was in place because gov’t was already so involved that it had to counteract the moral-hazards caused by its involvement. For instance, thanks to the FDIC, the banks get all the benefits, and the risk is spread to the taxpayer. That does not sound like tiny government to me. That is of course the start, and there are many more reasons such as Fannie and Freddie being the biggest buyers of subprime, helping to legitimize the whole operation, the CRA, the leadership helping fuel the housing bubble and bestow the notion that American dream = homeownership and that you can get rich by buying a home. The biggest culprit of all may have been the Fed that pumped air into the bubble. There is no chance that you can call that a tiny government. Anyway, I’m no expert on this topic, but the people that predicted the bubble, were pointing to these factors BEFORE the bubble burst. So I tend to listen to that.
Regarding your second statement: again, you have to convince yourself that a tiny government is the right size of government. You have not done that, so how am I going to convince you that it should not meddle in climate change? Anyway, once you give the power to the government to regulate business and meddle in your personal life in the name of a better environment, how are you going to take that power away in case the government screws up, and it will. Just think, you’re going to have the likes of GWBush, Obama, Romney talking to you, deciding what is good for the environment and what isn’t. How are you going to police them? How will you know what they are telling you is the truth? Did you believe that Bush waged a war in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction? Were there any repercussions when they didn’t find any?
In regards to who should take action on global warming – you should. Saying the government should is like saying, “hey, I think global warming is a problem, you should pay for it.” In my opinion , global warming is a very important issue, and due to the stakes – the fate of the planet, it may be the most important. You shouldn’t be continuing business as usual and leaving it up to Rombama to solve, we already did that with the economy, and look how far that got us. You should be out there walking around with posters, warning people that this is a serious, life and death issue. We had people doing that for the second coming in May a couple of years ago – and they were crazy. And you have the truth on your side, near 100% certainty that is verifiable by scientifically based conclusions.
]]>By: BillyJoe7http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/science-debate-2012-answers/#comment-45577
Tue, 02 Oct 2012 11:28:56 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4836#comment-45577Tiny government gave us the subprime fiasco!
Governments should take scientific facts and consensus opinions into account.
And if governments don’t take action on climate change, who will?
]]>By: rayliderhttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/science-debate-2012-answers/#comment-45574
Tue, 02 Oct 2012 05:33:39 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4836#comment-45574BillyJoe7,

To answer your first question: certainly not, especially if they concern the fate of the planet. And no, in my opinion, that is not the preferred outcome. To arrive at my opinion, you would first have to convince yourself that tiny is the correct size for a government (in contrast to a big government of today). I’m going to leave the convincing up to you, but for those same reasons, government should not have a hand in global warming prevention.

So you don’t think government should take action on scientifically derived conclusions, even if they concern the fate of the planet? Private enterprise will exploit the environment for all its worth if left to its own devices. Is that the preferred outcome in your opinion.

I’m stemming from the philosophy of a very small government, so by default I would think probably not – the government should stay out of climate change. The government should be focused on other issues and protecting our environment should be left up to the people. I’m thinking for the same reason a lot of the green technology should not be supported by the government – seems like a poor track record: gov’t starts picking winners and losers, takes your money, gives it to someone else, largely with out your knowledge – seems like a recipe for people doling out favors for their friends using your money.

]]>By: BillyJoe7http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/science-debate-2012-answers/#comment-45396
Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:27:47 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4836#comment-45396“Science is a private, not public, matter and the government should stay out of it. ”

So, no action by governments on climate change?

]]>By: rayliderhttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/science-debate-2012-answers/#comment-45376
Sun, 23 Sep 2012 06:27:08 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4836#comment-45376Personally, I could care less about the scientific literacy of the President. Science is a private, not public, matter and the government should stay out of it. What I would prefer, is a President that is more economically literate and actually defends the constitution, which is his principal responsibility.
]]>By: Mlemahttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/science-debate-2012-answers/#comment-45215
Thu, 13 Sep 2012 04:32:59 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4836#comment-45215I support what etatro is saying above.

I took note of Romney’s stance on net neutrality. Wonder if I would have stumbled upon “the skeptical movement” if this site had been buried under sites that ISPs found more profitable?

I also saw:
“A strong and successful NASA does not require more funding, it needs clearer priorities. I will ensure that NASA has practical and sustainable missions. ” my translation: Romney doesn’t think NASA needs more money, and, in spite of repeatedly decrying government involvement in various enterprise, Romney sounds like he wants to be the one to decide what NASA missions should be?

REgarding economy: Romney touts cutting government regulation and oversight. Historically, regulation spurs innovation and economic growth, while also improving safety. This is observable in almost any industry you care to examine. It also lends to quality of life for anybody who works for a living.

And I noted Romney’s education policy, which is in keeping with his anti-labor agenda: further cuts for teachers, and hopes for further union-busting. Not in keeping with world-class national educational systems that treat evolution as scientific fact.
I think skeptics have to ask themselves: do we really want a well-educated population? If we’re always griping about “critical thinking” then I think this might be an important question. I know there’s a big debate here about what contributes to a good education system – but supporting that local communities make the decision on what and how they’re going to teach, would be a step backwards – encouraging the kind of environment where creationism can become valid curriculum.

]]>By: Steven Novellahttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/science-debate-2012-answers/#comment-45194
Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:36:46 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4836#comment-45194Kawarthajon – there is no agenda or bias to ignore Canada. We simply report the news that we find. It may be a bias in the media, or in my news sources.

I will pay more attention to that, however. Also – I will give you the same suggestion I give everyone who complains that we don’t cover enough X news – send me news items. Send me relevant skeptical Canadian news and I assure you more of them will find their way onto the SGU.